Royal Society Review Scientists Break Their Silence

On April 1st, 2014 the Royal Society of Canada submitted its Review of Safety Code 6: Health Canada's Safety Limits for Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields. Despite selecting highly conflicted academics to its review panel, and having to replace three of them after a conflict of interest was exposed in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the panel went ahead with its report. Predictably it was a rubber stamp that Canada's radiation safety limits should not be changed.

Despite Geoffrey Flynn, Secretary of Expert Panels confirming in writing that the conflicts present would be disclosed with the review, they were not.

“With respect to the points of view and potential conflicts of interest of the panel members, these are largely known to us, were carefully reviewed at the first meeting of the panel, and will be published with the panel report.” (Click here to read full letter)

Now two of the Report's official peer reviewers have stepped forward to say something is amiss. It has been revealed that the Royal Society concluded that its "survey of the evidence" supports the notion that wireless radiation is safe, only because the panel did not consider the science that shows it is not.

The two reviewers give us a rare inside look at the true controversy behind the Royal Society's "expert" review panel. Definitive evidence that cell towers, cell phones, smart meters, Wi-Fi and cordless phones can cause harm to humans has been swept aside at the highest level of scientific oversight in Canada.

The two scientists breaking their silence are eminent scholars in the fields of human cellular biology, and the environmental causes of Cancer in our society.

Dr. Anthony B. Miller, MDUniversity of Toronto.

Official peer reviewer for Royal Society of Canada's Expert Panel to review Safety Code 6.

"..this is a conflicted panel, with insufficient expertise in Epidemiology – it is unfortunate that the Royal Society failed to amend the membership of the panel as requested by some of us. This is a report to the Royal Society of Canada, not a report of the Royal Society..."